Tag:Motion for Sanctions

1
z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2006 WL 2401099, *18 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006)
2
In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F.Supp.2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
3
Kimbrough v. City of Cocoa, 2006 WL 3500873 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2006)
4
Barker Capital LLC v. Rebus LLC, 2006 WL 247114 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2006) (Unpublished)
5
Madden v. Wyeth, 2006 WL 568015 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2006)
6
Recinos-Recinos v. Express Forestry, Inc., 2006 WL 2349459 (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2006)
7
Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2006 WL 3208579 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2006)
8
Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)
9
Waltzer v. Tradescape & Co., L.L.C., 819 N.Y.S.2d 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
10
MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. Fakouri Elec. Eng’g, Inc., 2006 WL 686577 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2006)

z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2006 WL 2401099, *18 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006)

Key Insight: On defendants’ motion for a new trial, court concluded that jury was properly instructed that it could make an adverse inference against Microsoft with regard to relevant email that was not produced until the day before trial

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 462 F.Supp.2d 1060 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

Key Insight: Adverse inference and monetary sanctions warranted, but not default judgment, where defendant acknowledged that its personnel routinely deleted emails without regard to whether the deleted emails were relevant to the litigation, but behavior did not constitute a pattern of deliberately deceptive litigation practices and there was evidence that the actual number of emails lost was small

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Kimbrough v. City of Cocoa, 2006 WL 3500873 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 4, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions based upon defendant’s failure to produce complete copy of particular monthly medical report where plaintiffs failed to show that duty to preserve attached to the report, or that report was crucial to their claims, and there was no evidence of bad faith, especially since defendant had gone to “extraordinary lengths” to attempt to retrieve a copy of the complete report

Nature of Case: Civil rights, excessive force

Electronic Data Involved: Monthly medical report

Barker Capital LLC v. Rebus LLC, 2006 WL 247114 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 12, 2006) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court directed plaintiff’s counsel to submit an affidavit re attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with certain depositions and three motions to compel, where defendants produced certain corporate minutes and other documents after the close of discovery, and where defendants had failed to produce emails and other electronic documents from all available sources despite their general counsel’s earlier affidavit to the contrary

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and other electronic documents

Madden v. Wyeth, 2006 WL 568015 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2006)

Key Insight: Court awarded plaintiff $47,970 in sanctions representing attorney’s fees and expenses reasonably incurred in bringing motion to compel discovery of Wyeth’s adverse event database and production of prior versions of certain reports and source documents; court had earlier granted plaintiff and her expert supervised access to defendant’s database

Nature of Case: Drug products liability

Electronic Data Involved: Database and source documents for certain reports

Recinos-Recinos v. Express Forestry, Inc., 2006 WL 2349459 (E.D. La. Aug. 11, 2006)

Key Insight: Court imposed monetary sanctions of $36,391 where defendants “made no effort whatsoever to locate and provide either documentary or electronic data discovery,” and erroneously represented that relevant electronic evidence was irretrievable, thus giving plaintiffs no choice but to incur the extraordinary expense of hiring a computer consulting firm to retrieve what was purportedly ?irretrievable?

Nature of Case: Class action alleging claims under Fair Labor Standards Act and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act

Electronic Data Involved: Payroll data

Reino de Espana v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2006 WL 3208579 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2006)

Key Insight: Where Spain failed to place a timely and adequate litigation hold in its agencies and ministries, court found that Spain violated its discovery obligations under the FRCP and observed that relevant email and electronic records probably no longer existed; court granted defendant’s motion to compel and invited defendant to to file an application requesting the relief, remedy, or sanction it deemed appropriate in light of the court?s findings

Nature of Case: Litigation brought by the government of Spain arising from shipping casualty and oil spill

Electronic Data Involved: Email and electronic records

Wells v. Orange County Sch. Bd., 2006 WL 4824479 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant’s initial email search was not appropriate and incomplete and court observed that ?better communications and diligence ? e.g., through personal interaction rather than email between general counsel and the IT director ? would have avoided one year?s delay in producing relevant documents,? court denied motion to compel since record indicated that further searches would be futile, but awarded plaintiff costs of motion

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Waltzer v. Tradescape & Co., L.L.C., 819 N.Y.S.2d 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Key Insight: Defendants’ failure to comply with six separate court orders to produce personal documents and electronic documents in the possession of two law firms that had formerly represented defendants, coupled with inadequate excuses for those defaults, warranted striking of their answer

Electronic Data Involved: CDs containing electronic documents

MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. Fakouri Elec. Eng’g, Inc., 2006 WL 686577 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and dismissal of opponent’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses based upon spoliation of evidence described as “intentionally modifying and deleting files from the laptops central to this case,” finding that evidence was “far from clear-cut” that defendants destroyed evidence sufficient to warrant a death-penalty sanction

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Files on laptops

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.